it won't be implemented anyway because there are too many other things that need to be changed...Not to mention that the only thing that will bring us players would be new class or race.
Yes, I agree there are many other things to change, but that isn't a very good reason to -dislike- this one. Let the IMMs prioritize!
I strongly disagree that only new classes/races will bring players. Increasing the learning curve isn't exactly what we should be focusing on right now.
Someone is attacking your cabal and you have better things to do? Really? Someone took your standard and you would rather have a healer tea party? Seriously?
This is the ultra-conservative mentality that I want to break. If you have an adequate defense, then no, you don't need to scramble everyone. There are many other productive (for the character AND the cabal) things that could be done. Pure attack/defense doesn't really advance the cabal itself; it just helps to keep it alive. It is extremely counterproductive to spend all your resources on something like that.
Nope' date=' that is what I meant and I am immensely baffled. If someone attacks my house, I don't sit around and have tea because the little woman is handling it. We both would roll. I really don't understand not responding to an attack.[/quote']
To further expand on my point--a cabal isn't exactly a personal house. It is a major, world-scale organization. In FL, they are effectively countries (or the equivalent of such in terms of power if not function). If there is a minor attack, you don't respond by scrambling your entire military (and likewise, all your civilians) to defend against it.
No more Reavers of Nexus? It would also make it much more demanding as a cabal member.
Right, as TheNewGuy already said, Possessed are the upgraded versions of Reavers. Reavers are brute killers, but Possessed are extremely psychotic killers. The current Reaver subcabal doesn't really hit the mark with the whole 'crazy' part. Tons of great RP is possible in here. A believable evil. 
The second point is much more serious. That is one of the things I really trying to push with this idea. Cabals really SHOULD be much more demanding than they currently are. Cabal members get a ton of perks that currently have only require minor responsibilities (especially for good pkers).
Why no neutrals in the agency? They do a "necessary bad". Neutrals definitly fits in.
Also, the capture the flag cabal warfare system HAS to be reworked, or even replaced. Or it'd be running for flags all day long. Maybe it could be replaced by raids, and/or similar stuff?
I did that to ensure that the Knights and Agency will never be working together directly. It is that rivalry and dichotomy that makes the Empire an interesting faction to play and different from the other two. Overt and covert. Light and darkness. Direct and indirect power.
I also agree that the cabal warfare system needs to be drastically reworked. With or without this system. But that is beyond the scope of this idea and deserves its own (series of) threads.
However, the main concerns I have regarding this so far are the alignment/ethos limitations. Right now, a good chaotic has three cabal options - under this, it'd have none.
If you are good then you are essentially trying to work to save the future. In this war-torn, emergency state of affairs, there are two ways to do this. Either way, you must oppose those that would destroy the world (Forsaken). The ideological difference between goods are those that wish to preserve the current system (Empire) or the revolutionaries who oppose it (Gaia). If you are a good who isn't commited to any goals at all, then you of course don't need to join a cabal. That is the same as now.
This doesn't leave you with a lot of RP + PK race/class/cabal combos, but the RP combos are still limitless. Any character type you can think of would fit into either the Empire or Gaia. Current Knight or Warmaster style? Definitely Gaia. Tribunal? Of course Empire. Savant? That depends on your character's goals, but likely Empire as they are trying to collect and preserve all collected knowledge. My point is that you can fit any current cabal RP and play that same character in one of these new subcabals. The only change would be in the PK skills and cabal name.
Cabals are meant to limit RP to some degree. I'd say that these three choices are much, much more flexible than the current eight choices. In the current system you are forced to be a specialist. In this new system, your beliefs could be either very specific or much more general and still fit into the same cabal.
We may as well just have people picking what cabal they want at chargen rather than picking their align and ethos.
That is a good idea actually. Why not start in the feeder clan? Why not have our ethos (not align for EQ purposes) determined by clan rather than set at the start?
...nothing related to this thread...
Lytholm.
Why did you vote that way? What are your thoughts?
I like the idea, but my one concern was already mentioned. If it's 2vs1, the large number of characters in the 2 is just gonna overwhelm the 1. Either two people beat on each other until the 3rd wins because the others are far too weakened, or two gang up on one until they're totally obliterated.
This is why I wouldn't allow alliances except in very drastic situations that would be determined by IMMs and concerned with PK balance.
Things can be lopsided no matter how many teams there are. If there are two teams, one team might just dominate. If its 2vs2, one cabal might be inactive and that team is 'destroyed'. I chose three teams because there are three distinct ideologies at work in the RP here.
Destroy the world vs Promote the current world state vs Promote a new world state
Other reasons I don't like this system:
-
With 8 people in 8 cabals I have 7 targers. With 8 people in 3 cabal I have at best 5 or 6 targets.
-
... Having cabals with a wide range keeps things interesting - on both a cabal vs cabal and cabalmate vs cabalmate level.
Cheers,
L-A
- With 8 people in 8 cabals, you either have 0 or 1 acceptable target--the opposite cabal member or nobody if you are Syndi/Herald. The rest may or may not be available, but are not determined by the cabal (which is what we are talking about here). It doesn't really matter if they are available though, as you will be fighting that one required opposite cabal member until one of you logs off. So, in the end, as long as there are 8 cabal members on, you will have only one target.
In my system, you'll have those 5 or 6 targets available. Does this mean you like my system more now?
- Yes, that is exactly why I'm making the cabals wider. Specialist cabals get boring because everyone has the exact same ideology and the RP is repeated and stale. Here you can have different ideologies in the same cabal working towards a greater goal. This new system is much, much more flexible.
I doubt it could be implemented without 100% changing everything that FL has been up to now.
Again, this idea on a coding level only requires changing flags. A non-coder could do this very easily. The major change is not in the code, but instead it is in the RP environment.
I do not, however, think this is the right way to do it.
Your idea is also very good and I think something should be done, but I'm not sure how it relates to you not liking mine outside of the IMM-priority argument.
What do you dislike about my idea?
Don't forget that this is only your point of view Cel.
I can replace your "improve" with "degrade".
I didn't mean it so seriously, but I had to respond to your attack. 
Also remember that a well thought-out POV with a reasonable justification is much better situated than a POV centered on personal bias. (in this, I'm just trying to say that hating change for the sake of it being change is acceptable, but not a very strong or respectable position)
For example:
I hate vampires because this skill combined with this other one is overpowered.
vs
I hate vampires because I was just killed by one.
Either one may be right or wrong, but it is the reasonable argument that is important and influential, not the personal feeling.